Steve Lord wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 17:48, Matthijs van der Klip wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Could someone tell me what the status of the 'null' issue is?:
> >
> > http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#nulls
> >
> >
> > Has any solution or workaround been developed yet? Can we expect a
> > solution in the next official release?
> >
>
> The 2.4.18 kernel in cvs and the patches has some code which removes
> the synchronous transactions from xfs. For the most part these tended
> to be the culprit in that an inode size update was forced out into
> the log long before the data was.
>
> So, while it is still possible, it is less likely than it was.
I would assume that a file subject to NULLs would still be at risk of
being emptied out, rather than acting as nice as full journalling would.
So is this 2.4.18 code intended to simply avoid filling with nulls, or
does it completely protect the file (the former seems more likely)? It
does not seem possible to have the advantages of full journalling within
a meta journalling system.
D. Stimits, stimits@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Steve
>
> --
>
> Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511
> Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@xxxxxxx
|